I-587 Conceptual Design Report - Main Report - Final Draft February 2011

8/7/2019 I-587 Conceptual Design Report - Main Report - Final Draft February 2011

1/31

Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc

Kingston Intersection Study

I-587 AT ALBANY AVENUE/BROADWAY INTERSECTION

Conceptual Design Report

Technical Memorandum


2/31

City of Kingston I-587/Albany/Broadway Intersection StudyConceptual Design Report

Prepared for the Ulster County Transportation Council

Prepared by:

Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc.

In association with:

AECOMAlternate Street Design

URS

February 2011


3/31

Table of Contents

Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1Public Participation ........................................................................................... 1

Public Survey ................................................................................................1The Design Workshop .................................................................................6Direction for the Future What We Heard..................................................7

Design Drivers .................................................................................................. 9

Components of a place ................................................................................9Organization of Streets ............................................................................. 10The Sparse Network ................................................................................. 12

Transportation Solutions ................................................................................ 13Interstate 587 ............................................................................................. 13Albany Avenue, I-587 and Broadway Intersection .................................. 13Future Capacity ......................................................................................... 17Albany Avenue Recommendations .......................................................... 17Network Expansion ................................................................................... 19

Additional Considerations ............................................................................... 21Benefits of a Roundabout ......................................................................... 21Concept Visualizations .............................................................................. 24Conceptual Cost Estimates ...................................................................... 28

Appendix A: Design Workshop Stakeholder Interview CommentsAppendix B: Analysis SummariesAppendix C: Route 28/I-87/I-587/Washington Avenue RoundaboutAppendix D: Public SurveyAppendix E: Advisory Committee Presentation


4/31

PAGE 1

Introduction

A major component of the Kingston Intersection Study was the publicdesign workshop. This workshop was held over a three-day period inlate September of 2010. The location for this workshop was the FirstBaptist Church on the northeast corner of the intersection, which servedas the base of operations for the study team and the site of a number ofpublic events held during the three days.

Study Area, Kingston NY

This report is a summary of the work accomplished over the three-dayperiod and the feedback that was collected from the public and a numberof interested stakeholders. The event was well attended and the resulthighly positive. A conceptual plan for Uptown Kingston was developed,influenced by the citizens of Kingston that not only addresses problemswith the existing intersection, but provides a blueprint for longer-termsustainability of the city.

Public Part icipat ion

Public Survey

At the start of this study, the Ulster County TransportationCouncil (UCTC) articulated a set of interrelated goals for itsoutcome. The project was motivated in large part by the trafficbottleneck at the intersection of I-587, Broadway and Albany

Avenue. The more encompassing goals set for the studyincluded the following:

Reduce vehicle and pedestrian delays Improve vehicular and pedestrian safety Minimize impacts to area residents and businesses Preserve parking capacity Improve freight mobility Enhance economic vitality

Incorporate energy efficiencies/green technologies Improve gateway appearance Protect the historical character of the area Incorporate public input into the process and results

As a precursor to the design workshop, a survey was developedand administered electronically via SurveyMonkey.com. Thissurvey was intended to gather preliminary feedback from thecommunity on some of the study area issues and overarchinggoals stated above. Over 100 responses to the survey werecollected and analyzed (a full set of results can be found in theappendix), and the presentation made to the AdvisoryCommittee and the public at the workshop is summarized in thefollowing pages.


5/31

PAGE 2

Question: What do you use this intersection for (choose all that

apply)?

The results confirm the multi-purpose utility that this intersectionprovides.

Question: Do you think that traffic congestion is a problem at thisintersection?

The results indicate that a majority of the respondents (> 86%)

believe congestion is a problem, at least during certain periodsof the day.

Question: During what hours (if any) would you avoid drivingthrough this intersection?

The responses show a familiar pattern of traffic distribution overthe course of a typical work day. The majority of responsespoint to the usual morning and afternoon peak commuter hoursas the ones to avoid, and to a lesser degree, the lunchtime peakhour. As shown in the illustration on the next page, when theseresponses are overlaid onto the traffic distribution graph that is


6/31

PAGE 3

based on actual traffic counts, the general shape of the graph

matches the responses.

It was noted in the presentation that the daily traffic on all

approaches to the intersection is relatively balanced, with thelowest volume leg being I-587.

Question: Do you think safety is an issue at this intersection?

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of respondents indicated that safety isan issue and some of the responses were as follows:

Cars go straight to I-587 in the left turn only lane fromBroadway

Pedestrians are confused; drivers are confused It is difficult to navigate with a bicycle I-587 traffic blocks the Albany intersection Ive seen accidents and near misses in many different

locations

Question: Would you be more likely to walk or bike in the vicinityof this intersection if substantial improvements were made to thesidewalks, crosswalks, bike lanes, and streetscape?

Over half (58.4%) of the respondents indicated that they wouldwalk or bike in the vicinity of the intersection if improvementswere made to accommodate those modes. More walking andbiking has the potential for reducing congestion created by shorttrips and also contributes to the economic health of acommunity.


7/31

PAGE 4

Question: Do you think that there is adequate parking for the

businesses in this area?

The responses suggest that parking needs are satisfied in the

area, but some improvements should be considered.

Question: Is the directional signage at this intersectionsufficient?

Although a majority of respondents indicated that directional

signage is sufficient, it was noted that the question waspotentially misleading since there appears to be an over-supplyof directional signage at the intersection that some feel isconfusing to drivers. This particular question was requested tobe explored in greater detail during the workshop.

Question: Who do you think this intersection should primarilyserve?

The response to this question overwhelmingly points to therecognition that this intersection is important to both local andregional traffic. Any improvement concept developed during theworkshop needs to consider the mix of local and through trafficequally.


8/31

PAGE 5

Question: There are many small parcels of green space at this

intersection now, if these spaces could be combined, do youthink that a small park would be appropriate at this intersection?

The majority of responses suggest that a small park at theintersection is unnecessary.

Question: How much of an improvement do you think thisintersection needs?

Almost half of the responses suggested a complete rebuild of

the intersection is necessary. A considerable number ofresponses also pointed to possible improvements for theintersection, short of a complete rebuild. A small fraction ofresponses pointed to only maintenance of the existingintersection as a possible solution.

Question: If you had to pick just one type of improvement to thisintersection, what should it accomplish?

Clearly congestion reduction should be a major considerationwhen addressing this intersection. The fact that all of thechoices provided in the survey question had some level of

importance ascribed to them demonstrates that the overallsolution to this intersection should satisfy many goals.


9/31


10/31

PAGE 7

Day Tw o

The second day of the workshop was spent interviewingadditional stakeholders and sketching out the ideas the studyteam had heard thus far. This was largely a synthesis of ideasand comments collected from a wide range of study participantsand the work produced provided the framework for the ideaspresented in the remainder of this report.

Day Three

On the third day of the workshop, the study team did sometechnical analysis of the feasibility of the ideas or solutions theyhad sketched. Some preliminary solutions were developed, anddrawing of what they would look like developed.

The study team prepares to address the PAC

Also during the day, there was an Open House where the

community at large was invited to come see the results of theexploration of options for the intersection and its surroundings.The workshop was concluded with a second meeting of thePAC to share the findings of the three days of work and get theirfeedback.

Direction for t he Future What We Heard

As the design team listened to the citizens of Kingston, and key

stakeholders in the study area, many common themes emerged.The following is a summary of the key ideas expressed during theworkshop.

1. Kingston community is proud of the City! Many folkswho attended one of the workshop events expressed howproud they are of Kingstons heritage as well as its manyassets including the surrounding natural beauty of the area.

2. Intersection improvements are not just about traffic.

Some folks thought the traffic congestion and hazards werea huge problem and some did not. But everyone seemed toagree that the intersection as a space was a dead zone ofasphalt and grass that does not benefit the City in the waythat it should. The intersection poses many concerns thatare not traffic related.

3. This is the gateway to Kingston. It was the generalconsensus that the place where I-587 enters Kingston ismajor entry point. It is a drivers first introduction to the City

a doorway into the City environment. As such, it does notserve the City well. It should be attractive, inviting andwelcoming.

4. Mobility improvement is needed for sustainability.Sustainability is the efficient use of resources to meet theneeds of todays community while not sacrificing the abilityof future generations to enjoy the same resources. Thetransportation network is a resource. It must function well


11/31


12/31

PAGE 9

Design Drivers

The people of Kingston intuitively understand the characteristics of agreat place. Comments from a broad array of stakeholders indicate thattransportation plays an important role in the shaping of a place. Midtownis viewed as a conduit for traffic (or the bar of a dumbbell) betweenRondout and the Stockade district. These later locations are viewed asplaces that people want to be, and are often cited as sources ofcommunity pride by local city residents.

Midtown is sometimes referred to as the handle of the dumbbell

Components of a place

Cities exist because people require access; access to services,jobs, housing, entertainment, social interaction, and information.In the late 19

thcentury, public streets facilitated such access in

everyday life. As the horse and buggy averaged about 10 MPH,streets were safe for people to walk and interaction to flourish.

In a sense, the streets themselves were places and busy streets

meant a vibrant economy.

City streets were traditionally places that facilitated interaction

Kingston is promoted as a place.As people enter the city via the I-587/Albany/Broadway intersectionthey are greeted by vibrant bannersadvertising the uniqueaccommodations that are offered.

The banners are overshadowed bythe unnecessary scale andproliferation of signage in the areathat communicate vehiculardominance. The sense of place hasdiminished as a result of a lack of

Gateway Banner


13/31

PAGE 10

human-scale infrastructure, which is currently prioritized almost

solely for the motor vehicle.

Highway-scale signage coupled with multi-lane, one-way streetsand dedicated high-speed turn lanes translates to one thing forthe driver: speed. During times when traffic congestion is notpresent, the project intersection facilitates high-speed drivingbehavior that is incompatible with pedestrian and bicycle use. Inkeeping with directives to balance the needs of all users anddevelop an enticing gateway to the city, the intersection projectshould be designed for vehicular speeds of 30 MPH or less.

Scale of signage and expansive pavement communicates speed

Organization of Streets

Approaching transportation solutions that achieve long-termsustainability requires an understanding of how the organizationof the street network affects mobility and access. Network

structure can be compared to the skeletons in living organisms.

The organization of bones in humans and animals is responsiblefor the way in which they appear, move and perform tasks.Similarly, the bone structure of streets determines how a placewill appear and function. The following figure illustrates thenetwork structure in the vicinity of the project area.

Kingstons bones

In 1777, the year the British invaded and burned the City ofKingston, the uptown street network consisted of a traditionalgrid with small blocks and narrow streets. The Stockade District,as it is now known, is shown in yellow on the figure on the

following page. These well-defined blocks were traditionally theway communities were planned and allowed people options forreaching their destinations. Blocks were close together so thatpeople could walk efficiently and buildings were kept close to thestreet to enhance access.


14/31

PAGE 11

Grid structure of Kingston in 1777

Today, the Uptown Stockade is still an area that is inviting tovisitors and residents alike. Much of this historic area ofKingston is highly walkable and the mix of architectural styles,boutique shopping, dining, and other amenities offers the charm

to residentsand visitorsalike.

Uptown Stockade District

In the past half century, conventional transportation planning has

placed an emphasis on high-capacity streets built for speed anddirect access. Instead of the tightly defined grid network,superblocks were formed that contained large scaledevelopments with massive on-site parking supply and limiteddriveway access. The figure below highlights in yellow thesuperblock network structure in Uptown Kingston resulting fromthe development of a shopping center and I-587.

Superblock structure of Kingston in 2010

The network that is created from this style of development

consists of wider roads flanking the perimeter of the superblock.The consequence of this type of transportation and land useplanning is that traffic volume pressure builds along the edges ofthe superblock, and in particular, at the intersections of theseprimary streets. Without a grid to disperse traffic and providealternate ways to access land, an endless cycle of planning formore and more road widening results.


15/31

PAGE 12

As evidenced throughout the study area, street life, economic

vitality, and aesthetics have been severely compromised by anetwork that places a disproportionate emphasis on automobilemobility.

Empty commercial space on Albany Avenue

St. James Street

The Sparse Netw ork

A sparse network limits the overall road system capacity of anarea and necessitates the widening of individual roads to solvetraffic congestion. This rarely results in long term success. Asroads become wider, traffic demand projections are eventuallyrealized and the planning cycle begins all over again. Inessence, the constant need for wider roads becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The illustration below demonstrates the cycleof traffic growth related to land development, and the need for

the constant planning for roadway expansion.

In midtown Kingston, roads such as Albany Avenue andBroadway are already capacity constrained during the peakhours as intersections are unable to process the traffic level thatcurrently exists. Relieving congestion at one intersection has


16/31


17/31

PAGE 14

2. Move the pedestrian crosswalk on Albany Avenue west of

the intersection closer to the intersection (see Figure 1 page 18).

Sign density and arrangement is confusing

Medium Term Solutions

Option 1: Compact Signalized Intersection. Rebuild theintersection as a compact signalized intersection. This optionaims to improve operations over the existing split phasedsignalized intersection. The compact intersection was analyzedboth with and without the high-speed travel lane from AlbanyAvenue (eastbound) to Broadway (southbound). The lane is

marked with a red X on the following illustration.

Goals of this project include creating a gateway to the city andimproving safety for pedestrians and bicyclists within the studyarea. Achieving these goals requires the elimination of the high-speed travel lane from Albany Avenue to Broadway.Eliminating this high-speed lane would force right-turning

vehicles to utilize the redesigned signalized intersection at

considerably slower speeds. The elimination of this lane willalso limit the overall capacity of the intersection for future growthin traffic; however, this is an essential trade-off if other studygoals are to be achieved.

Compact intersection

Option 2: Mixed-Lane Roundabout. Replace the existingsignalized intersection with a mixed-lane roundabout. Aroundabout would improve both vehicular and pedestrianoperations.

Two alternatives for a modern roundabout were explored. Thefirst attempted to reconnect St. James Street and East St.James Street by locating the roundabout southeast of theexisting intersection. While this concept is functional, it breaksup the open space component of the intersection into a numberof small and unusable parcels.


18/31

PAGE 15

Modern Roundabout alternative 1

The second alternative places the roundabout in roughly thesame location as the existing signalized intersection. Thisoption creates a more effective gateway for midtown and offersample public space for passive recreation and the relocation of

important city monuments.

Modern Roundabout alternative 2

Capacity Analyses

Table 1 lists the results of the capacity analysis performed foreach option. The table shows that the roundabout providescomparable operational performance to the compactintersection in most area, but for average delay per vehicle andaverage queue length, the roundabout is superior.

Additionally, the proposed roundabout layout uses fewer lanes(8 entry lanes) compared to the 11 entry lanes in the signalized

intersection option. A picture of the intersection geometry and acopy of the Capacity Analysis Summary Sheets are included inAppendix A.

The roundabout option consists of a single-lane geometry wherethe I-587 approach has a right turn only lane and a combinedthrough-left lane. A simple change to a through-right lane and aleft turn only lane with two circulating lanes makes aconsiderable difference to the operation of the roundabout, anddemonstrates the flexibility of the roundabout design, which

provides the opportunity later to refine the lane designation astraffic volumes change.

In all but one approach, the roundabout has a shorter 95th

percentile queue. This is because at high saturation levels awell-timed, signalized intersection can optimize the balance ofthe longest queues. However, even though the roundabout mayhave a longer queue in one case, its throughput is higher, andvehicles are in moving queues that are less frustrating for

drivers. Overall delay is less in the roundabout as vehicles areconstantly moving rather than being stuck in a static queuewaiting at a red light.


19/31

PAGE 16

Table 1 Summary of capacity analyses under current traffic levels

Intersection Alternative Level-of-service Averagedelay (sec) 95

t

percentilevehicle queue(ft)

AverageQueue (ft) V/C Ratio

Existing signalized intersection C 28.1 386 199 .676Compact signalized intersection (retain high-speed Broadway bypass)

C 27.0 363 180 .733

Compact signalized intersection (without high-speed Broadway bypass)

C 29.4 402 203 .792

Roundabout 1 (right turn only lane and acombined through-left lane with one circulatinglane)

B 18.1 355 73 .815

Roundabout 2 (through-right lane and a left turnonly lane with two circulating lanes)

B 11.6 156 42 .676

Notes1. All analyses were undertaken in SIDRA 5.0 to provide uniformity in assumptions and analyses.

2. All roundabout analyses were undertaken using an Environmental Factor of 1.2 although it is less relevant as Kingston has had a roundabout for a number of years enabling

drivers to become accustomed to it. Therefore, the values for the roundabout could be conservative.

3. All analyses were undertaken using the default peak flow factor of 0.92.

4. Signal analyses were undertaken using fully actuated signals system that will only occur if the signals and loops are fully maintained.

5. Sidra software was allowed to choose the optimum cycle times. Other cycle times will restrain the vehicle flow and reduce the intersection capacity.

Compact Signalized Intersection Roundabout 1 Roundabout 2


20/31


21/31

PAGE 18

Figure 1: Improvements along Albany Avenue


22/31

PAGE 19

Netw ork Expansion

Solving capacity constraints along Albany and Clinton Avenueswithout major impacts to property and community characterrequires an extension of the road network north of these tworoads. Changing the designation of I-587 to State Road 587and making a series of new road connections provides alternateaccess to destinations uptown. In turn, this alternate accessalleviates traffic pressure on Albany and Clinton Avenues, andpreserves capacity for future economic growth in the city. The

following illustration demonstrates how local and regional tripsare all routed along Albany and Clinton Avenues under thecurrent network configuration.

Currently, all trips are focused along Albany and Clinton Avenues

The next figure illustrates the expanded network concept.Extending the block structure and street network will providedrivers with a variety of travel routes to their destination andbalance the flow through the network. The most importantconnection is the extension of John Street to Westbrook Lane to

SR-587 (I-587). Intersection control would be handled viaroundabouts at SR-587 and the road along the southernboundary of the Kingston Plaza. With only an eight to ten feetgrade difference, this connection appears feasible. Aroundabout could also be located at the intersection of ClintonAvenue, Fair Street Extension and Schwenk Drive, which wouldbe the terminus for the new road along the southern boundary ofthe Kingston Plaza. This road could also be extended along therailroad tracks under I-587 and ultimately to Albany Avenue.

Expanded network concept

Place-Making Opportunities

The proposed network expansion concept offers an opportunityto re-imagine how Kingston might be developed in the future.Figure 2 illustrates a conceptual street network with the primarystreet network in red and a secondary, delivery network in blue.An extension of the street grid would provide a considerableincrease in street frontage for additional development.


23/31

PAGE 20

Figure 2: Expanded Street Network and Place Making Opportunities


24/31


25/31

PAGE 22

Pedestrians can easily cross roundabout

Parking

The roundabout will result in the addition of parking spaces tomidtown. The creation of driveways/plazas on the southeastand southwest corners of the intersection will offer more parkingthan is currently available today.

Additional parking provided in front of existing buildings

Transit/Freight Access

To accommodate vehicles with large turning radii such astrucks, buses, and tractor-trailers, roundabouts provide an areabetween the circulatory roadway and the central island, knownas a truck apron, over which the rear left wheels of thesevehicles can safely track. The truck apron generally iscomposed of a different material texture than the paved surface,such as brick or cobble stones, to discourage routine use bysmaller vehicles. Roundabouts provide a better, wider turningradius for semi-trucks and other long vehicles. Even doubletrailer semi-trucks will be able to easily drive through theroundabouts.

Streetsc ape/Landsc ape/Public Realm

Aesthetics of the area would be greatly enhanced especially if asignificant feature is added to the center of the roundabout tocreate a focal point. One of the goals of this study is to create

an attractive gateway into the City of Kingston. A roundaboutprovides an opportunity to do that.

Gateway roundabout in Town of Great Neck Plaza, NY


26/31

PAGE 23

Roundabout Option 2 - An ideal gateway to Kingston

Green Design

Many vehicles must wait for the light to turn green in a signalizedintersection. While stopped, the vehicles exhaust emitsundesirable pollutants and gases into the atmosphere. Becauseroundabouts often eliminate such stops and improve traffic flow,they also reduce vehicle emissions and fuel consumption. In onestudy, replacing traffic signals and signs with roundaboutsreduced carbon monoxide emissions by 32 percent, nitrousoxide emissions by 34 percent, carbon dioxide emissions by 37

percent and hydrocarbon emissions by 42 percent. Gasolineuse is also reduced as traffic moves more efficiently throughroundabouts. Studies have shown that fuel savings can be upto 30 percent in roundabouts. Without the stop and start oftraditional traffic intersections, roundabouts can also reducevehicle noise pollution. 4

4 Nevada DOT. http://www.nevadadot.com/safety/roundabout/benefits.asp

Maintenance Cost

The modern roundabout will have electrical costs associatedwith lighting and lower maintenance costs overall. Operationalsavings from roundabouts have been estimated at an averageof $5,000 per year. In addition, the service life of a roundabout isapproximately 25 years, versus approximately 10-20 years ofservice life for traffic signals.

5

Economic Revitalization

A modern roundabout is a safe and efficient traffic controlsolution that is friendly to pedestrians and bicyclists can addvalue to an area over time. Foot traffic is an essential ingredientfor the survival of area businesses.

Roundabout Option 2 Creation of public sp ace and parkingwithin the footprint of the existing intersection

5 Nevada DOT. http://www.nevadadot.com/safety/roundabout/benefits.asp


27/31


28/31

PAGE 25

Figure 3: Pen and ink birds-eye view of the compact signalized intersection


29/31

PAGE 26

Figure 4: Pen and ink birds-eye view of the roundabout


30/31

PAGE 27

Figure 5: Oblique view of the roundabout looking south from I-587


31/31

Documents

I-587 Conceptual Design Report - Main Report - Final Draft February 2011